Monday, December 17, 2012

Newtown

Gun control is actually a misnomer –
it should be called sensible gun regulation but the chances of this
happening are about as great as the members of the NRA all becoming
Quakers or joining CND.

So, Newtown, Connecticut joins the sad
litany of communities that have suffered such unthinkable and
appalling crimes. The list is long and it is not confided to one
country, continent, ethnicity, religion or creed. It is truly an
all-encompassing human tragedy.

Is it possible to stop such crimes? Is
it possible to identify those of us who are likely to commit such
crimes? Are such crimes preventable?

The answer to each of the above is no.
So, what should we do? Anything? Nothing? Give up?

The first step would be to identify the
problem. Sounds simplistic, but too little is known about what makes
some of us “snap” in such an unimaginable manner. We must not
abandon efforts to come to a better understanding just because the
task seems so difficult. As the old saying goes “ An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

By all accounts, the perpetrator of
this tragedy would fit most criteria for mental illness.

Unfortunately, so would a large number
of others who pose no risk to society. Are we likely any time soon
to be able to identify potential mass murderers? No.

Does that mean that we should give up
trying to improve mental health screening and treatment? No –
absolutely not.

Next we need to consider what the role
of government is in the quest for some solution – or at least some
improvement.

The NRA and others would have you
believe that the government can have no part to play in gun control
at all because of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. “A
well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.” Seems fairly simple. Or is it?

The first part is often not quoted or
misquoted. This is the part that mentions a militia. In its
historical context this makes perfect sense. In 1787 most of the
country was not settled. Indian intrusions in the parts west of the
Appalachians were a real and present danger.

George Washington's early military
career was spent in the Virginia militia. The Founding Fathers
recognised that the citizen soldier was invaluable in maintaining
order on the frontier. They were also vehemently opposed to the
English practice of hiring mercenaries. They believed, quite
rightly, that a citizen force drawn from the local community would
best serve the need of the new nation. In this they cannot be
faulted, even after 200-odd years. The citizen militia is guaranteed
by the Second Amendment. Unlimited access, use and ownership of guns
is not.

It's the second part that causes
controversy. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed”.

The Supreme Court has ruled - When
the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District
of Columbia v. Heller
in 2008, it was the first time the Court had considered the meaning
of the Second Amendment in 69 years.

In
the previous case, U.S.
v. Miller
(1939), the Court noted: “In the absence of any evidence tending to
show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly,
it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.” This reaffirmed the "collective right"
interpretation of the Amendment that federal courts had taken since
1791.

In fact, no federal appellate court had adopted an
"individual right" interpretation of the Amendment until
the 2003 case of U.S.
v. Emerson.
Yet in the Heller
case a
5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, "The Second
Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The ruling overturned a long-standing ban on handguns in the District
of Columbia. It was the first time in history that a gun control law
had been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

Justice
Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, made an important
qualification, however. "Like
most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he
stated. "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt
on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms."
My italics.

it is clear that there is no
unqualified right to bear arms. The question is how do we quantify
the right guaranteed in the Constitution?

On one side we have the people who
believe that the right extends to carrying any kind of firearm and
also carrying it as a concealed weapon if they choose. Others
believe the right does not extend so far. What is clear is that the
Supreme Court has been very reluctant to rule on the over-arching
provisions of the Second Amendment.

With good cause – it's a minefield.

The English Media is predictably
confused on the issue – not quite realising that the Constitution
is the US equivalent of the Queen; so, changing it is tantamount to
replacing the monarchy.

Does this mean that nothing can be
done? Not necessarily.

Many people have conveniently forgotten
that during the Prohibition era Congress did impost limits on the
Second Amendment.

In 1934 FDR took action with the
National Firearms Act

Brought about by the lawlessness and
rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like
machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as
short-barrelled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as
well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and
such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were
slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the
Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each
firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject
to Treasury Dept. approval.

In 1968 we got the Gun Control Act

The assassination of John F. Kennedy,
who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey
Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The
subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and presidential
candidate Robert Kennedy fuelled its quick passage. License
requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed
record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines
were restricted; the list of persons dealers . . .

The key element of this bill outlawed
mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail
order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21
years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also
detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns,
including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles
sales.

In 1986

Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

Made it illegal for anyone to
manufacture or import armour piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer
bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

Firearms Owners' Protection Act

Eased restrictions on gun sellers and
the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using
a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary
convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

The idea that the government has not
and cannot limit the sale, use, possession or ownership of guns is
simply wrong. The government has and continues to do so.

The question then must be has any of
this done any good?

The answer is a qualified yes.

In general crime and particularly
crimes of violence using firearms has been falling. It is still far
higher than even in neighbouring Canada, but the trend is downwards.

Unfortunately, this is not relevant to
preventing people who are clearly not in control of their faculties
from committing another Sandy Hook. People as these are not deterred
as “normal” criminals are. No amount of judicial punishment or
restrictions will stop them.

This is a good time to see what others
are doing. Gun crime is international. It knows no national,
ethnic, religious or cultural boundaries.

Norway

The Sandy Hook episode pales in
comparison to Oslo/Utoya, Norway in 2011. Anders Breivik, 33,
murdered 69 people – mostly on Utoya island in Oslo fiord with an
additional 8 killed when he bombed a government building in Oslo.

“July 22, 2011 will live long in the
memory of all Norwegians after the carnage that unfolded that day.

After detonating a bomb outside the
prime minister's office in Oslo, killing eight people, Anders Behring
Breivik took a ferry to Utoya Island and embarked on a shooting spree
that took the lives of another 69 people attending a youth camp.
Total killed 77 and many were youth workers meeting on Utoya for a
conference.

Authorities said Breivik roamed the
island shooting at campers, before members of an elite Norwegian
police unit took him into custody.

In August this year, Breivik, who
boasted of being an ultra-nationalist who killed his victims to fight
multiculturalism in Norway, was judged to be sane at the time and
sentenced to 21 years in prison after being charged with voluntary
homicide and committing acts of terror.

An independent report into the worst
atrocity on Norwegian soil since World War II blamed a series of
intelligence and planning failures for delaying the police arrival on
the island by 30 minutes.

Despite ownership and the type of
ammunition permitted for use being tightly regulated, the report also
criticized Norway's gun controls as "inadequate." It called
for a total ban on semi-automatic weapons of the type Breivik
purchased with relative ease.

Like Finland, Norway has a high number
of guns in circulation with hunting a national pastime. According to
the Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City," there are almost
32 firearms per 100 people in Norway. This compares to 88.82 per 100
in the United States.”

This case is unusual in that Breivik
was arrested and stood trial. The judges ruled, perversely in my
view, that he was sane at the time of the killings.

Australia
In one of his first acts as leader, Prime Minister John Howard
announced major reforms to Australia's gun control laws just 12 days
after 35 people died at the hands of a lone gunman wielding a
military-style semi-automatic rifle at a popular tourist spot in
Tasmania on April 28, 1996.
In the wave of public revulsion against what became known as the
Port Arthur massacre, the move for stricter gun controls was led by
Howard, who had taken office just seven weeks earlier and who, in the
first few hours after the tragedy, declared himself horrified "at
this shocking and senseless act."
He took his anti-gun campaign around the country, at one stage
addressing a hostile pro-gun rally wearing a bullet-proof vest. He
also oversaw a successful gun "buy-back" scheme that took
some 650,000 guns out of circulation.
Australia's eight states and territories got behind legislation
that addressed mass shootings: High calibre rifles and shotguns were
banned, licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were
registered to uniform national standards -- an accomplishment
regarded by many in the country as Howard's enduring legacy.
Australia has been compared to the United States for its "frontier
mentality." But unlike the U.S., there is no constitutional
right to bear arms, gun ownership is markedly lower and
American-style gun culture has taken hold in only a few pockets of
Australian society -- most notably among the crime gangs operating in
the two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne.Finland
Finland enjoys a strong tradition of hunting and has a high
proportion of gun ownership, with 1.5 million firearms owned in a
nation of more than five million people, according to government
figures.
Gun control has also been more relaxed here. Until recently anyone
aged 15 and over was able to apply for a gun license if they offered
a valid reason such as membership of a gun club.
Though gun crime is rare, the country has suffered two major
incidents at schools in recent years.
On November 7, 2007, a teenager opened fire with a handgun at his
high school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula, killing eight
people before fatally turning the gun on himself.
Police said all of 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen's victims had
multiple gunshot wounds, most to the upper body and head. Some 69
shells and more than 320 unused bullets were found at the scene.
Auvinen, who had no criminal record, obtained a license for the
weapon the previous month and regularly practiced sharp-shooting as a
hobby at a local range, police said.
The authorities said Auvinen, who police later described as lonely
and antisocial (myitalics),
had posted a series of videos on YouTube featuring guns, with some
hinting at the massacre at Jokela High School itself.
The following year, on September 23, the country was numbed by
news of another mass shooting. Over the course of 90 minutes, 10
people were fatally shot as Matti Juhani Saari, wearing a ski mask
and black fatigues, rampaged through a campus at Kauhajoki city's
School of Hospitality in south-western Finland.
The 22-year-old later died in hospital from a self-inflicted
gunshot wound to the head.
Chillingly, police revealed Saari had been questioned days before
the shooting about a video posted on the internet showing him firing
a gun, though no action was taken because he was licensed and had not
broken the law.
In the wake of the shootings, the Finnish government moved to
issue new guidelines on the use of firearms, particularly handguns
and revolvers. New applicants for handgun licenses are now required
to show they've been active members of a gun club for one year and be
vetted by their doctor and police.
The minimum age for purchasing licenses of short barrel weapons
has been raised to 20 -- 18 for hunting rifles. Permits are now valid
for a period of five years before being reviewed.

Britain

Despite relatively limited gun
ownership and availability, Britain has experienced several mass
shootings in the past 25 years.

On August 19, 1987, 27-year-old Michael
Ryan went on a bloody rampage for several hours in the southern
English town of Hungerford, Berkshire armed with a pistol, hand
grenade and an automatic rifle. He murdered 16 people and wounded
over a dozen others, before he shot himself after being tracked down
in a college building in the town.

In the wake of the Hungerford massacre,
Britain introduced new legislation -- Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
-- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning
semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.

Nine years later, on March 13, 1996,
43-year-old Thomas Hamilton burst into a school in the picturesque
town of Dunblane in central Scotland and embarked on a terrifying
shooting spree that left 16 five and six-year-old children and their
teacher dead. The former scoutmaster turned one of the four pistols
he was carrying on himself.

The following year, a new law --
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 -- was passed effectively
banning the private ownership of all handguns in the UK. This
followed a highly successful public campaign in the months after
Dunblane that included a petition being handed to the government with
almost 750,000 signatures, according to British media reports.

Britain was shaken by another massacre
in June 2010 when a lone gunman, named as Derrick Byrd, killed 12
people and injured almost 30 others after a near four-hour shooting
spree in rural Cumbria, northern England. After a huge manhunt, the
body of the 52-year-old taxi driver was found alongside two powerful
rifles, one equipped with a telescopic sight. He had taken his own
life. Police were investigating 30 crime scenes at one point.

The tragedy again raised questions
about the effectiveness of Britain's gun laws after it was revealed
Byrd was licensed to carry firearms. The licensing application
process involves being vetted by police as well as the applicant's
doctor to assess their fitness to own a weapon.

Enough said? There is no American gun
control problem – there is a universal, world-wide gun control
problem with some unidentifiable individuals killing their fellow
men. No country has the monopoly on gun crime. We are all in this
together.

What's to be done? President Obama has
hinted at some measures. There is very little chance that any
legislation will be forth-coming. The world moves on. It's sad but
true. There is no appetite in America for legislation.

But, some of the crazier aspects of
local laws may be shamed into oblivion. The idea that we should have
more guns being carried by citizens, either openly or concealed, is
more that idiotic – it's just plain criminal.

There is this notion that maybe if the
teachers had been armed at Sandy Hook or the caretaker or the
principal or the janitor or casual passers-by then the tragedy could
have been prevented.

What tosh!

The more people we have routinely
carrying guns the more deaths we will suffer.

Of course, you and I are fine – but
what about him down the road? Or Uncle Joe? Or Jasper, the
coon-hunting red-neck who is by common consent three short of a
six-pack? (Great – give him one of the semi-automatics, I hear the
nuts saying)

Arming school personnel would only
result in so many more tragic accidents that Sandy Hook would look
like a Girl Scouts picnic.

Ok, let's put police in every school.

There's an idea? Maybe cops on very
street corner, 7-Eleven, Mom and Pop store, shopping mall, sports
event, kindergarten, grade school, high school, university and
college, bar, country club, VA hospital, America Legion Hall. (This
list is as inexhaustible as is is silly and fruitless. - who is going
to pay for all this – the NRA – the already hard-pressed tax
payer – the ACLU – it's just beyond belief that some rational
people I know are advocating this kind of prescription – think –
think – this would not save a single life – it never has!)

Some people are just not thinking.

Time to make my recommendations.

Let's increase the spending on mental
health.

Let's try to reduce the guns in society
which have nothing to do with hunting. (BTW the best hunting weapon
I know of is a .50 calibre machine gun – you can hit a target a
half- a mile away – I know I qualified at Ft Hood, Texas in 1968 –
BTW is the NRA advocating twin 50's mounted on the back of Ford
Broncos?)

Let's have a grown-up debate about gun
legislation – not the silly ideas that we are currently being
snowed under by. I support the Second Amendment. I support the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let's do all we can to make sure our
citizens are safe at home, work, school or wherever.